draft-ietf-sigtran-sctp-mib-09.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Maria... during IETF Last Call, some MIB doctors have expressed
a concern about the use if InetAddressType and InetAddress.

We wonder.... (i.e. text is not clear or consistent):

- Will SCTP (and this MIB Module) forever only support IPv4 and
  IPv6, or is IPv4z and IPv6z also supported in some circumstances
- Will other InetAddresses NEVER be supported in the future?
  I would say that that is difficult to claim is it not?

So we wonder if it is true that

  For now, only IPv4 and IPv6 need to be supported, but possibly
  in the future you may also allow for IPv4z and IPv6z

  For now, only IPv4 and IPV6 need to be supported, but possibly
  in the future other addresses may be supported.

If we know the exact answers, then we can propose proper text
for the use of InetAddressType and InetAddress TCs.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maria-Carmen Belinchon-Vergara (ECE)
> [mailto:maria-carmen.belinchon-vergara@ece.ericsson.se]
> Sent: woensdag 5 maart 2003 14:14
> To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; 'Shawn A. Routhier'; bwijnen@lucent.com;
> 'LyOng@ciena.com'; mankin@psg.com
> Cc: Javier Pastor-Balbas (ECE)
> Subject: RE: Review of SCTP MIB 09: SCTP-MIB v.09d
> 
> 
> Hi all, 
> 
> 	The SCTP mib is now published. We'll post the changes 
> in the mailing list (sigtran and transport mailing list?). 
> But the issue is that the last revision was made in the TSV 
> mailing list not in the Sigtran one, so we're not sure which 
> chairman should decide on the WGLC. 
> 
> br,
> MCarmen
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> Sent: martes, 25 de febrero de 2003 22:21
> To: Maria-Carmen Belinchon-Vergara (ECE); 'Shawn A. Routhier';
> bwijnen@lucent.com
> Cc: mankin@psg.com; Javier Pastor-Balbas (ECE)
> Subject: RE: Review of SCTP MIB 09: SCTP-MIB v.09d
> 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> > 	Hopefully the mib is going to the end. If you don't 
> > have any other comment, we'll submit the draft by Friday. How 
> > should we handle this? After the announcement in the IETF 
> > mailing list, should we (or somebody) post a note in the TSV 
> > WG for any other comment? Should we go for LC? 
> 
> I think it would make sense to post a summary of changes to the
> WG mailing list and then let your WG chairs decide what to do.
> I'd think that a (new) WG Last Call makes sense.
> 
> After that you WG chairs will hand it to Allison I think
> for further processing (e.g. IETF Last Call and putting it on
> IESG agenda).
> 
> Thanks,
> Bert 
> 
> <snip>
>